Parents withholding gift of money. Am I ungrateful?

[ContactLenses]

My DSis (18, I'm 27) recently passed her driving test and was given £500 towards a car by my parents. They gave this to her in front of me and said "we're not leaving you out, the same is waiting for you when you come to either buy a house or pass your driving test"
However, they know I have no plans to buy a house in the near future (I rent with DP and we're very content with that for now) and where we live, having a car would be more of a hinderance than a help- very central, very good public transport, nowhere to actually put a car. So I don't really plan on learning to drive anytime soon either as we love where we live.
AIBU to think that if they want to give me a gift of money, it's not really fair for them to withhold it until I want to spend it on what they want me to?
I know it's their money, they don't HAVE to give me anything, and it would never have even crossed my mind that they would give me anything. I don't want to come across entitled, but they're the ones that mentioned it!
I also wouldn't fritter away the money on nothing. They know we love to travel and if I was given a gift of money I'd probably put it towards a trip, because that is what I like to do.
I feel like they really shouldn't have mentioned it at all. I don't actually know what I want to do about this, as I can't really bring it up with them so I think I just wanted to know if it's only me that thinks this is unfair of them? Am I ungrateful?

People do give rewards.
Parents may take you out to celebrate your degree. And pay for the meal. So it's money spent to celebrate an achievement. It's normal.
Passing your test is worthy of celebration. Whether that's a meal out, or money it's given due to that particular milestone.
Like wedding presents.
Baby presents.
It's up to the giver to decide which milestone they wish to give for.

The problem with threads such as this is that you will always get those who treat their children unequally coming on to say that it is their money and they can do what they like with it. Whilst It is obviously unreasonable to "demand" or expect money from parents, it's can't see how it is unreasonable to expect equal treatment.

He has never stopped bitching about how our parents helped me onto the property ladder but not him.

Does no one point out that he was given the money too but spent it on something else? It seems a bit odd that he is able to keep bitching if that really is the case.

My sister learned to drive at 17. I learned to drive last year at 22. My dad paid for both our driving lessons. It took me twice the amount of lessons as my sister. Should he have given her the difference? Treating children equally doesn't necessarily mean the same. My dad bought us both a car And paid our insurance in full to keep it cheaper than paying monthly and we paid him back. Should he have given me that money because he had gotten her?

Parents support what they deem as things that need support. learning to drive is very expensive but long term is beneficial as is buying a house. Going travelling though it of course has benefits does not have the same tangable benefits as the above and doesn't provide security like the above. So yes I think you are being unreasonable.

My sister learned to drive at 17. I learned to drive last year at 22. My dad paid for both our driving lessons. It took me twice the amount of lessons as my sister. Should he have given her the difference?

Why not? Considering you were 22, I don't think it would be unreasonable to give you the same amount for lessons as your sister had.

Roomster
He considered it unfair because he felt it was penalising me for not taking to driving as easily. I really struggled dispite doing several driving lessons a week and driving with my dad outside lessons. It took me about 25 lessons and 2 tests. My sister also had previous experience driving as she had raced a junior class of stock cars since she was 11 were as I had never so much as driven in a straight line. It took her about 12 lessons and 2 tests. He wanted to put us through our tests. It took me more lessons but that doesn't mean my sister is owed anything. We were treated equally. We were both put through our test. It just happened to take more for me to do that. I have a brother who is now 17 and he will get as many lessons as he needs be it 5 or 50.

The problem with threads such as this is that you will always get those who treat their children unequally coming on to say that it is their money and they can do what they like with it. Whilst It is obviously unreasonable to "demand" or expect money from parents, it's can't see how it is unreasonable to expect equal treatment.

But you think the difference in the cost of the driving lessons above should be made up in monetary terms. That to me and a lot of people isn't equal. One child gets more lessons and passed the test. Another got the same outcome of passing a test but also got a load of money to spend on something else. How on earth can that be seen as equal? Yes the same amount of money on each but it is not fair in terms of outcome.

I see myself in wanting to be equally fair to my children, as do my parents to me and my sibling, however I, and they, would be fine with giving money for a car or house but we wouldn't give money for travelling.

It's like when parents buy one child something to wear because they have outgrown stuff and they have to get the other one something too to be fair, even though they don't actually need it. That's being ridiculous and spending money for the sake of it in the name of fairness. As long as it all equals out roughly in the end.

He considered it unfair because he felt it was penalising me for not taking to driving as easily.

That's how life is though isn't it? At 22 you were certainly an adult and if like, most adults you had paid for lessons yourself you would have pay more if it took longer to pass.

But you think the difference in the cost of the driving lessons above should be made up in monetary terms. That to me and a lot of people isn't equal. One child gets more lessons and passed the test. Another got the same outcome of passing a test but also got a load of money to spend on something else. How on earth can that be seen as equal? Yes the same amount of money on each but it is not fair in terms of outcome.

I'm not saying that your parents should have done that just the it would be reasonable and equitable to do that...I didn't really mean that one child should get lessons and a load of money. I meant that it would have been reasonable to give the same amount for the lessons and if it took you longer to pass then it would be reasonable to expect you to pay the extra yourself considering that you were 22.

I see myself in wanting to be equally fair to my children, as do my parents to me and my sibling, however I, and they, would be fine with giving money for a car or house but we wouldn't give money for travelling.

If you give money for a house or car, then it means they will have more money to travel so really any attempt to earmark money is pretty pointless and can lead to treating adult children unequally. I think that once children are financially independent adults, then they should be trusted to spend the money sensibly.

What if one child learnt to drive when lessons cost £30 an hour and another child learnt to drive a few years later when lessons cost £35 an hour? Both had 15 lessons and one test. The test cost £50 for the first child and £75 for the other.

Should the first child be given the difference in cost?

I didn't say that any child should be given the difference in cost. I said that it would be reasonable to give the adult children the same amount of money for the lessons. Obviously if the money was given to one adult several years later then it would be reasonable to take inflation into account and give a bit more. If parents weren't ear marking money in the first place and let adult children choose what they wanted to do with it rather than try to control what they buy inflation wouldn't be an issue though would it?

Sorry I haven't had time to RTFT, but does your sister still live at home?

£500 won't go very far towards a car or a house so I think it's almost neither here nor there in terms of conferring advantage.

I am desperate to treat my children fairly but also to treat them as individuals and meet their specific needs. I hope they all understand that sometimes that means giving one or other some extra support, in terms of time, money or emotional support. I hope that they will ask for help when they run into trouble that I'll be able to make the right call about whether and how to provide it.

I hope that they will ask for help when they run into trouble that I'll be able to make the right call about whether and how to provide it.

I think it is quite odd that you seem to expect your children to require your help when they are adults and talk about "when" they run into trouble rather than if. I have never run to my parents for support and I hope that I have brought up my children to look after themselves and to be able to use money sensibly as adults.

Ok - 'if', if we are splitting hairs. But few people live trouble-free lives and as I said it could be emotional support or time, not necessarily cash or things.

My point was that I hope they will always feel that they can talk to me about what's going on if they want to. And that I'll be able to make the right call about how and when to help. Sometimes that will be saying 'no' (or resisting offering).

I agree that children should be brought up to be able to manage independently but getting a bit of the right sort of help at the right time can be hugely valuable.

eg - money for an interview suit and work shoes might be a step towards independence, while money to sustain an unrealistic social life could be very damaging in the long term.

eg - money for an interview suit and work shoes might be a step towards independence, while money to sustain an unrealistic social life could be very damaging in the long term.

That would surely only apply to children who are still living at home and aren't yet working i.e. not financially independent adults.

I hate strings-attached gifts, and particularly those designed to manoeuvre you into doing what the givers think you should. You aren't being in the slightest bit bratty, they're being crap.

Ok - so they might have been working in a job which didn't usually require a suit but they needed a suit for this interview... it's just an example!

Ok - so they might have been working in a job which didn't usually require a suit but they needed a suit for this interview... it's just an example!

That still doesn't sound like an independent adult to me. What age are you talking about? Would you buy a suit for a 25 year old or worry about whether they were spending too much on their social life.

I'm saying I would use my judgement.

...And also that I would try to treat the children the same overall. Eg if one needed a suit I wouldn't necessarily write a cheque for the same amount to the others or buy them suits the same week, purely in order to be 'fair' in the moment.

And also that I would try to treat the children the same overall. Eg if one needed a suit I wouldn't necessarily write a cheque for the same amount to the others or buy them suits the same week, purely in order to be 'fair' in the moment.

Well it would seem quite petty to do that over a suit. However, I think it is a bit different if you are giving money to buy a house, for example. Firstly because the sums are much higher but also because the children are likely to be proper adults and beyond needing someone to buy them a suit an interview.

£500 won't get you much in the way of a house....

And yes of course if help towards a house is being considered it's got to be very well thought through.

I'm not talking about OPs situation specifically but about the general idea of giving one independent adult child more money than another for perceived milestones and "needs" e.g. deposit for a house.